|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 12, 2012 13:51:43 GMT -5
If Snyder delivers a fantastic reboot on the level of the latest "Trek"- then I'd totally forgive the movie if it WAS titled: "Superman: whatever"  |
|
Conor
New Member
Posts: 1,569
|
Post by Conor on May 12, 2012 14:37:04 GMT -5
I don't see why WB don't go for an Avengers movie. Everyone likes Batman and people will go see Superman no matter what. I think with the success of the Avengers they might be reconsidering!
MOS won't compete with Avengers!
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 12, 2012 15:21:51 GMT -5
Nolan's disapproval of including Batman in the planned Justice League film I believe started to unravel that project... Originally I think they were going to do a Justice League film, and branch out to solo films- but then with Avengers' success of doing things the other way around- starting to plant seeds in successful solo films, and connecting the dots--- that MIGHT have worked with starting out in Green Lantern, but that was such a big bomb, they had problems with just connecting the dots in ONE superhero feature film!
So..... who knows what's being said in the board rooms- but I don't know if anyone in that board room is looking all that smart nowadays with the continued string of comic book failures, outside of the Nolan Batman....
Would LOVE to be able to access a transcript of any of these WB board meetings regarding how they could keep Singer in limbo over the sequel for years, Superman in circles for decades, Justice League meetings, Green Lantern meetings, and on and on and on..... if I were an investor, I'd love to know who are the ones (assuming it's more than one person) causing such a freeway pileup of superhero film disasters...
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 13, 2012 13:24:53 GMT -5
After seeing Avengers again, the area I DO hope/think that MOS may win over Avengers: a memorable theme. Seen the movie 4 times now, and damned if I can even remember what the tune was for the Avengers. Alan Silvestri DEFINITELY fell asleep at the wheel. I love his 'Back to the Future' and 'Captain America' was good, but out of the different composers that have worked on the solo films (Patrick Doyle for Thor or the composer for the first Iron Man would have been my own choice), pity that there wasn't a memorable theme created. If Tyler Bates has an 'invisible' theme for MOS, it'll be one more reason to have some resentment towards MOS outside of the missing trunks... |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on May 13, 2012 15:47:12 GMT -5
. Maybe they should have put Snyder on Green Lantern and Campbell on Superman. Perfect and obvious idea. Wonder if they're doing MOS reshoots to up their game? Could be worse folks. The Avengers could have set the World alight early 2006 and upped the ante for cinematic superhero excitement and adventure - only for WB to follow with Superman Returns ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on May 13, 2012 16:38:20 GMT -5
Again- its apples and oranges.
1) avenegers only works AFTER a series of solo movies that explain origin/motive and set-up the context fora Shared universe.
Anyone expecting ANY superhero movie to match avengers is a crackhead idiot.
Iron man 3 won't. T hor 2 won't. So why expect mos ?
2) putting the current dc regime in charge of dc movies means dan didio and jim lee design the look and write the stories.
D.o.a.
Obviously a timm-dini team would rule and surpass marvel but wb hasn't figured that out in the last 20 years- I don't see it occuring to them anytime soon.
3) on paper, wb/dc has a slight advantage (only in theory).
With marvel the core avengers team have not had the profile of a batman or superman. Wb/dc really only needs to "explain" 3 or 4 characters like wonder woman, flash and so forth.
A justice league could be a way to introduce martian manhunter and then simply have superman and batman show up.
Since they're already doing mos they SHOULD indicate shared universe. But frankly the first order of business is just to get ONE character right.
4) I predict a great deal of revisionist Monday morning quarterbacks who abruptly find nolans approach "passe" and "pretentious" because it isn't as "fun" as a movie that had five prequels.
TDK was the first cbm to make a billion $ and the only smart thing wb/dc has done was stay out of his way.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 13, 2012 17:38:40 GMT -5
I'm hoping that TDKR also makes a billion- that way, if both a 'dark' and serious comic book hero movie AND a more light spirited comic book movie make billions- then studio execs might stop coming to ridiculous simple-minded conclusions based on the latest hit--- (ie. "TDK made a billion- therefore, all superhero films should be dark! ie. "Avengers made a billion- therefore, all superhero films should be funny!)--
And just realize that superhero film should be GOOD films, not just strategically calculated ones, if they want good word of mouth- and, presumably- the box office that usually (not always) follows from that.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 13, 2012 17:43:02 GMT -5
I'm sure there's a serious amount of extra paranoia and stress in the WB conference rooms over this..... Green Lantern had a big pile of money tossed into its fx budget at the last minute, but that didn't seem to help it one bit- On the other hand, if they DON'T up their game while they have this opportunity to, there's gong to be tons of regret as well... On the plus side for WB, they still have a good chunk of lead time if they choose to do so. On another note, I wonder why the person who voted MOS will blow away Avengers hasn't elaborated at all as to why they're so certain? |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on May 13, 2012 18:18:34 GMT -5
Again- its apples and oranges. 1) avengers only works AFTER a series of solo movies that explain origin/motive and set-up the context fora Shared universe. Anyone expecting ANY superhero movie to match avengers is a crackhead idiot. But why shouldn't it be just as good as Avengers? Its SUPERMAN for cryin out loud. His fictional universe is as expansive as anything Marvel has done. The ingredients are there for a great action adventure film. Even if you take away the interconnected nature with the other Marvel films Avengers still works as an action/adventure film. Its entertaining. Cross pollination should have no bearing on that in MOS. The Avengers characters are mostly witty and entertaining and the level of spectacle is very impressive. Again cross pollination should have no bearing on that. The humor was well done. The humor involving the Hulk was not only good but organic to the character without making a joke out of him. Whedon knew how to raise the stakes during the battle in Manhattan. He did a good job showing the Avengers on the ropes and the escalation of the threat as the government is about the nuke the city. The sheer POWER of these heroes was fully realized on screen. The scale of this kind of superpowered battle was perfectly handled. A lot of people have been wanting to see Superman do what Banner/Hulk did when he made the final transformation in Manhattan for 20 years. Characterization was well balanced. Each major character felt unique. Character conflict was at just the right level. The film could be serious when it needed to and lighthearted and silly when it needed to. Not an easy balance. See Superman Returns. When the Hulk is stalking Black Widow in the bowels of the helicarrer Whedon actually let a pretty creepy scenario play out. He showed that The Hulk can be a monster to fear. A well done example of switching emotional gears. These are all things MOS should be capable of accomplishing without relying on 5 other related films preceding it. There have been many films that showcased epic action adventure spectacle without a series of prequels to build anything. Superman is just as powerful as THE most powerful Avenger so the action shouldn't be much further behind. MOS only has one hero to bring to life not six so the character juggling during the action sequences is going to be much easier. Nobody should expect MOS to be as financially successful as Avengers but creative success does not mean financial success. They are related but not the same thing. Look at what TDK did on its own creatively. Its a VERY well made film that does the character justice. You said yourself Superman has an advantage in that he is more well known than any Avenger was. Its not like they have to reintroduce everything from scratch the way the Marvel Studios films did. Dark Knight and Iron Man certainly generated high levels of excitement upon release. Most people knew very little about Iron Man but he became an A list character in the eyes of the public and the film was one of the most successful of its kind. Superman he hasn't had a huge hit film in 30 years but he's still a pop culture icon. Properly handled a Superman film SHOULD be a huge success creatively speaking. Hollywood has only scratched the surface in terms of what Superman is capable of. Even if Avengers didn't have the previous Marvel studios films I wouldn't say it doesn't work. It just wouldn't work quite as well. But even on its own its a heck of a ride. The big question is Why HASN'T WB done what Marvel did with The Avengers? They've quite literally had at least 20 years and all the resources a film studio could ever desire. If it takes cross pollination to get a DC film as successful as Avengers WB could have done it years ago. Thats their fault they are behind the competition. People have asked for something like this for decades. Ah...but I've got a feeling those films are still going to be VERY good. Maybe not as good as Avengers but they aren't going to be far behind either. They'll certainly be better than any non Batman film WB has offered it the last decade. Another question is what if Thor and Iron Man 3 are better than MOS? I think there is a real possibility of that. Shane Black hasn't been directing very long but at one point he was the most in demand writer in the industry. And everything starts with the script. Goyers output has been mixed at best. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on May 13, 2012 18:22:15 GMT -5
I'm sure there's a serious amount of extra paranoia and stress in the WB conference rooms over this..... Green Lantern had a big pile of money tossed into its fx budget at the last minute, but that didn't seem to help it one bit- On the other hand, if they DON'T up their game while they have this opportunity to, there's gong to be tons of regret as well... On the plus side for WB, they still have a good chunk of lead time if they choose to do so. On another note, I wonder why the person who was certain MOS will blow away Avengers hasn't elaborated at all as to why they're so certain? Green Lantern cost only 20 million dollars less than the 220 million dollar Avengers and didn't look HALF as impressive visually. Thats pathetic. What the heck did they spend the money on? Rendering that big lame space cloud? Avengers had epic scale comic book action. I swear WB blew some of the Green Lantern budget on cocaine for the executives. I'm just not seeing $200 mil on the screen even in the CGI. Its not like Reynolds cost a fortune. |
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on May 13, 2012 21:07:21 GMT -5
Oh - I'm not saying you're wrong at all- its just a movie like aveneger , which I think we both say only works as well as it does BECAuSe of the infrastructure built by favreau (and branaugh and johnston) - is a culmination as opposed to an entry-level story. Its like comapring harry potter and the deathly hollows 2 to "the amazing spider man(2012)" . You hope/expect spider man to be good, but how can we fairly expect it to compare to the build up and momentum of the final harry potter? That's all I mean - so many are acting as if all cbm's should be sheleved, like none will be worth watching after avengers. Its not only not true, its not what fiege/marvel even want. So- to your point - MOS has every obligation to deliver a BIG spectacle. But to compare it to the candy coated wank fest rub n tug that avengers (marvel 6) is as opposed to superman 1 being the gateway to a new series.... I just have very measured expectations....  |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on May 13, 2012 22:18:35 GMT -5
Well like I said even if you take the buildup of anticipation out of the equation The Avengers still does some incredible stuff right that so many comic book films get wrong. The writing is simple but very VERY effective. MOS should be handled the same way. It shouldn't be a Merchant Ivory film but it should do what it needs to do well. Iron Man 2 is arguably the worst Marvel studios film but it trounces most of what WB has delivered. I can't even bear to watch WB's worst superhero film. The first Iron Man wipes the floor with Green Lantern and there was no 4 year/5 film build up pf anticipation for that.
Anticipation is one thing but the finished product is another. I'm not going to hang unrealistic anticipation on MOS but expectations for that finished product when the film ends should be high. Hollywood productions aren't made in vacuums. WB has had a lot of time to learn and make smarter decisions. Superman Returns should have taught them something. Anything.
I HOPE MOS is as good but in reality there's a pretty good chance its not going to be. I'm certainly not kidding myself there. Thats WB's fault for not building up any kind of trust or reputation when it comes to these types of films.
But Avengers works not just because of the "instrucctions" left by others. Whedon brings his own things to the table that that makes the film work. Hulk is more him than Louis Leterrier and Ed Norton. Ruffalo knocks it out of the park and a lot of that is thanks to the good writer/director that Joss Whedon is.
And if anything is going to be a candy coated tug fest its most likely going to be Man of Steel. Have you SEEN Zack Snyders movies? ;D This is the guy that took a horror genre classic and dumbed it down into a (good) action movie. Who took maybe the greatest comic book ever and turned it into a glorified rubber suited slow motion music video.
WB could deliver a movie as good (not as anticipated) if they made the right choices but they won't so they can't.
|
|
Shane
New Member
Posts: 2,031
|
Post by Shane on May 14, 2012 1:33:29 GMT -5
Oh - I'm not saying you're wrong at all- its just a movie like aveneger , which I think we both say only works as well as it does BECAuSe of the infrastructure built by favreau (and branaugh and johnston) - is a culmination as opposed to an entry-level story. Its like comapring harry potter and the deathly hollows 2 to "the amazing spider man(2012)" . You hope/expect spider man to be good, but how can we fairly expect it to compare to the build up and momentum of the final harry potter? That's all I mean - so many are acting as if all cbm's should be sheleved, like none will be worth watching after avengers. Its not only not true, its not what fiege/marvel even want. So- to your point - MOS has every obligation to deliver a BIG spectacle. But to compare it to the candy coated wank fest rub n tug that avengers (marvel 6) is as opposed to superman 1 being the gateway to a new series.... I just have very measured expectations.... This |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2012 1:47:53 GMT -5
I would presume The Avengers would generate more good will for a single reason: We've never seen it in live-action. We've had five Superman movies. Superman isn't an event anymore. It's just another Superman movie. It's why Bond isn't an event anymore.
That doesn't mean they can't make money. It doesn't mean they can't be quality films. But the public is always going to be more enamored with something they haven't seen. Marvel Studios has the advantage WB can't have in regards to Superman and Batman. WB blew it with Green Lantern.
Perhaps with cash cow Harry Potter gone, WB will put more into developing these properties. Seems like everything was an afterthought to the annual Potter-fest.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on May 14, 2012 7:31:27 GMT -5
A Superman movie is never going to generate the anticipation that Avengers did on its own but if WB would step back and learn something they could release a film just as good or better. But nobody expects them to because they are a corporate monster without the finely tuned vision to see their problems when handling these properties. I've seen many BETTER movies than Avengers but few that were bigger. Avatar on the other hand isn't close to being the greatest movie but it is the biggest. Those are different things.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 14, 2012 10:49:02 GMT -5
You put it best, BamaBrad--- the only thing that would make it an 'event' would be some mindblowing word-of-mouth of something never seen before or the death of a major actor in it (Like Heath Ledger's death in TDK..... I wonder if it would have made a billion without the snowball effect of the timing with the movie)
It kills me that Geoff Johns was so supportive of it & even has his name on the credits. He'll always have a job in comics, but I wonder if his name got tarnished substantially in the movie industry because of the size of the GL bomb. Wonder how much damage GL is/has caused Martin Campbell...
I just hope that the superhero films in general still wayyy outgross the 'Twilight'-type films so that WB doesn't throw their hands up on doing comic book films (which are expensive to begin with) and just focus on making film adaptations of novels popular with the teenage girls. (Very possible as they don't cost nearly as much to make, either)
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on May 14, 2012 11:47:12 GMT -5
One reason Avengers has generated such good will is that people were willing to give the concept a chance. Marvel Studios has a record to stand on. WB doesn't beyond two Batman films. Interconnected or not when Marvel can release two fairly well received successful films in one summer (2011) and WB can't even release one that says something.
The excuse of "comic book movie fatigue" doesn't even help WB here because Captain America was the last film released that summer and it did very well despite being about a guy dressed up in an American flag. How well did some people expect THAT to play overseas?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on May 14, 2012 12:49:49 GMT -5
metallo- you make some excellent points. there's no question the marvel/paramount has been ballsier and actually BELIEVES in their characters- and it payed off HUGE. i'm just so frustrated/pissed/disappointed with WB/DC. character for character WBdC COULD match or even exceed marvel/paramount (and certainly marvel/fox). but it's going to take a change in leadership. we've seen what didio and geoff johns can do.... |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on May 14, 2012 14:01:35 GMT -5
I'm sure the smell of money will lead the way. Whether that means good movies...  All I know is get ready for that WildC.A.T.s movie from the wanna bees ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 14, 2012 14:47:36 GMT -5
Oh, I agree totally. In looking at the deleted scenes, with Reynolds in the mo-cap costume--- and the bts info, they counted WAYYY too much on the mo-cap GL suit to dazzle audiences & put far too much money and time on that.
I ended up liking the costume--- but not at the expense of the rest of the movie. A great visual effect is never worth more than a good story.
As far as the real reason why GL sucked imo: I'm thinking in general: (1) Either Geoff Johns didn't push hard enough storywise and was too much of a 'yes man' to this project, (2) Johns pushed hard, but was ignored, or (3) Geoff Johns couldn't see the story problems and was too much of a fanboy to see the problems.
I keep hearing Jim Lee is a great guy.
But....
So is Neal Adams, and both of their original creations oftentimes feel like second-rate copycats, (like the Wildcats- watered down ripoff of X-men & the Avengers) unfortunately.
I hope you're just kidding about the WildCATS being next for a bigscreen treatment- that would be a waste of resources.
|
|
EvilSupes
New Member
LOOK! Superman's drunk!
Posts: 3,037
|
Post by EvilSupes on May 14, 2012 15:23:00 GMT -5
GL is a weird film for me. It has some good aspects to it and likewise some terrible aspects to it as well.
I liked all the space stuff in GL, and anything on OA, but nearly everything on Earth sucked. The problem is the pacing is all over the place. It builds nicely with the stuff in space, but gives very little character development for Hal and jumps to the action, but then slows down again. It's all over the place. I think if they spent more time on certain areas like character development (Hal), and the film had more time to explore key areas and the run time was more like 2hrs 20mins to do that, it could've explored and done a few things better. The movie gives the overall feel of it being rushed to me. Certainly in the screenplay department. Or someone hacked a load of stuff out, I don't know.
I like it parts of it. It showed potential, but it got wasted in my opinion.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on May 14, 2012 16:04:58 GMT -5
The stuff on Oa is definitely the best part. I really liked Kilowog, Tomar-Re and Sinestro. The CGI could be iffy but I liked the look of Oa and the Guardians. For 200 mil more of the movie should have been set in space. They could have just made some adjustments to the First Flight script and filmed that since it uses similar GL Corp elements.
Parallax and Hector Hammond were just poor villains. Makes Starro not look so crap (if they had used the DCAU version). Or maybe Evilstar with some serious modifications. GL doesn't have the best Rogues gallery but Hector Hammond? That was their first major mistake.
They may have even been better of going with Sinestro first though I can understand why they wanted to save him for a sequel. They still had the Manhunters for use.
GL isn't God awful its just really "blah." Batman 7 Robin is terrible but at least I can enjoy it by making fun of it. GL doesn't even have that. Its just really mediocre and phoned in.
The CGI costume though...big waste of money. For the little it did it could have been part practical part CGI. it wasn't like Dr Manhattan where they HAD to do it to make the actor look right.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on May 14, 2012 17:52:07 GMT -5
IMO, WB played it completely safe with GL. Story was tried and tested formula. I'd have enjoyed it more 20 years ago. Today, we've seen it happen enough times now; also Marvel's movies had much more interesting plotting going on
So instead of checking the boxes of done-to-death character clichés in GL, we had Tony Stark stuck in an Afghan cave, Captain America involved in 2nd World War propaganda and Banner out in Brazil. Batman Begins and TDK also had some original plotting going on.
I think they also played it too safe with Superman Returns (far easier to cast a Reeve-a-like)
I really think a LOT is riding on MOS at this point, creatively and commerically. Even if I were a casual Supey fan, I'd be watching this with some interest
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on May 14, 2012 18:43:16 GMT -5
One reason Avengers has generated such good will is that people were willing to give the concept a chance. Marvel Studios has a record to stand on. WB doesn't beyond two Batman films. Interconnected or not when Marvel can release two fairly well received successful films in one summer (2011) and WB can't even release one that says something. The excuse of "comic book movie fatigue" doesn't even help WB here because Captain America was the last film released that summer and it did very well despite being about a guy dressed up in an American flag. How well did some people expect THAT to play overseas? a-f*cking-men. a patriotic, wholesome and god-believing hero...? how'd that happen in our fashionably hip commie hollywood? but hey- superman stands for... all that stuff...  Parallax and Hector Hammond were just poor villains. Makes Starro not look so crap (if they had used the DCAU version). Or maybe Evilstar with some serious modifications. GL doesn't have the best Rogues gallery but Hector Hammond? That was their first major mistake. like.... TOAD being in x-men 1. sir ian mckellan as magneto, hawt body rebecca-then-stamos as mystique and a cool as heck sabretooth..... aaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnd toad. at least WB/DC isnt the only fuckup. marvel/fox has plenty of turds. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on May 14, 2012 19:29:37 GMT -5
X-men actually improved Toad over his comic book counterpart though. Hector Hammond STILL looked like some a**hole with gigantism.  a patriotic, wholesome and god-believing hero...? how'd that happen in our fashionably hip commie hollywood? but hey- superman stands for... all that stuff... I wasn't all that bothered by the lack of Ra ra flag waiving in SR but what Hollywood did to GI Joe was unforgivable to me. They're American soldiers! Always have been. F*** that UN bs. |
|
